Re: [ACTION-320]: Localization Quality Précis Retain in Spec.

Thanks for the info, Phil. Maybe you can also attend the editing call 
this afternoon for 1/2 hour to make sure everthing is OK? Just show up on
http://irc.w3.org
channel #mlw-lt
if it works.

Best,

Felix

Am 28.11.12 13:01, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
> Felix
>
> Apologies for the lack of thoroughness. You are right. In line with 
> the other categories locQualityRatingScorePointer, 
> locQualityRatingVotePointer, locQualityRatingThresholdPointer and 
> locQualityRatingProfileRefPointer can all be dropped and Global markup 
> along with them.
>
> I would like to retain the four non-Pointer attributes for local 
> markup (locQualityRatingScore, locQualityRatingVote, 
> locQualityRatingThreshold and locQualityRatingProfileRef) and I don't 
> think there's any contentious issues with these.
>
> Jirka, sorry for any inconvenience.
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
> To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, philr@vistatec.ie,
> Date: 28/11/2012 10:41
> Subject: Re: [ACTION-320]: Localization Quality Précis Retain in Spec.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Am 28.11.12 10:54, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
> All
>
> Arle and I spoke this morning.
>
> VistaTEC definitely sees a requirement for Localisation Quality Précis 
> - that is, a data category to contain document level, quality related 
> metadata. The locQualityIssue metadata has much more meaning when it 
> is referenced back to an overall score and pass/fail threshold and 
> optionally point to other non-normative information (contained in the 
> rating).
>
> There is a current proposal for a change of name to "Localization 
> Quality Rating" at 
> _http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0151.html_. 
> I have no objection to this.
>
> Implementations: VistaTEC would be an implementer of this category. 
> Arle thinks that he could provide a second implementation but cannot 
> commit to having it ready until March 2013.
>
> Later today/tomorrow I will revise section 8.18 to reflect the naming 
> change and amend the description and post back to the group.
>
> The only questions I have having re-read the Loc. Quality sections are 
> about capturing the "agent" and "tool". Given that the Translation 
> Agent Provenance data category can be used freely in combination with 
> Localization Quality Issue and Localization Quality Rating then I see 
> no problem with the former and if we have a data category independent 
> mechanism for "tool" then I'm happy there also. Given these two 
> assumptions I see no need to change any of the Localization Quality 
> Rating attributes.
>
> So do you need all the pointer and non pointer attributes at_
> __http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqprecis-implementation_
> all of the counter parts of these attributes have been dropped. If wen 
> drop them for lqprecis too that would mean there will be no global 
> markup for lqprecis, just local. For lq issues there is now just 
> global rule attributes to point to standoff list of issues. but lq 
> precis doesn't have a counterpart here.
>
> In summary, what you did so far is not enough to keep lqprecis or 
> whatever we will call it here. Please take the time to think carefully 
> what mechanisms you really need, and do it soon.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
> Jirka, is this enough information that you can proceed with the schema's?
>
> Phil.
>
>
> ************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the sender immediately by e-mail.
>
> _www.vistatec.com_ <http://www.vistatec.com/>
> ************************************************************
>
>
> ************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the sender immediately by e-mail.
>
> www.vistatec.com
> ************************************************************
>